A previously "well-respected" MTT cheating team...

[ekky]

your basis for such a comment?

[Myrtle]

I know Jerrod, Bill and Matt Matros personally......I have read the complete string and am glad to see that Matt Matros is NOT part of this ‘Team”.

I am troubled by this post.

It’s one thing for players to discuss online hands (while both/all are viewing real-time) via IM or phone AFTER the completion of the hand. Out of these discussions come learning and greater knowledge, and it is fair and reasonable for any player to strive for such.

However, IMO, it’s another thing to do so while the hand is in progress. The discussion of this practice in the blog (and Jerrod’s post in this string) is direct and straightforward, which tells me that this subject has been given some serious thought by the players, which is what I would expect from them.

This is one of those ethical ‘gray areas’ that bears more discussion.

As far as this practice being ‘against the rules’? Well, if the site they’re playing on does NOT address the specifics of this ‘multiple players to a hand’ practice, then, literally speaking, this practice would NOT violate the site rules.

Then, there is also the ‘practical reality’ of the high likelihood that this practice, along with genuine collusion, is a commonplace occurrence on most all online sites. Add to that, all of the ‘data mining’ programs available today, and it is very easy to understand how one’s online results can be impacted.

Broaden this discussion by bringing into it the ‘one player to a hand’ rule, which is generally acknowledged to be in play during B&M play. I believe most of us understand & agree to the rationale of this rule.

Let’s put it this way.....Guys, it’s hard enough taking either of you on one -on-one; but both of you simultaneously playing the same hand puts me at a serious disadvantage!

Let’s turn the table.......What if I was playing vs. only one of you online, and Greg was looking over my shoulder and we collectively discussed every move that I should make before I made it? Does that not put you at a greater disadvantage?

I believe one of the primary pieces of the game of poker is that it is an ‘individual game’. It pits the skill & knowledge of one player vs. another. I take that to mean ONLY one player.

[ QUOTE ]
In brick and mortar poker rooms there is a "one player to a hand" rule. My position is that online poker is not brick and mortar poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jerrod, it might be that you’re riding a very thin ethical line with this position.

History is full of such similar ‘if it’s ok for him/them to do, so it must be ok for me/us also’ justifications.

It is very easy to slip over the line and allow this kind of thinking to pervade one’s individual ethics.

As someone who knows and respects both of your playing abilities, I would ask both of you to seriously reconsider the use of this specific ‘real time discussion’ practice, as the aspersions that it cast on your character can be easily be viewed to be unethical.

[drexah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
King of the Off Deuce is a highly respected poster on RGP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a compliment?

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly what i was thinking.

[drexah]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that everyone who plays online should be required to get (or poker sites required to send) a video feed. They are then required to set the video feed up and send it to the poker sites to prove that they are following the one player, one hand rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry CSC but this is probably one of the dumbest things i've ever read on these forums.

[ThorKGB]

Im a stranger and would like to respond to Sirios question:

"I'm waiting the response for all the strangers in this post.

Is the following statement accurate?

I have never, ever, given advise or received it while playing a hand in the internet."

This question goes to the core of the discussion about poker morals here. In fact, the question goes to the core of the whole field of moral philosophy itself.

The question is an example of a classical confusion of descriptive and normative ethics: Namely that you can not deduce from how people actually behave, to what is the moral thing to do.

(Sirio, is the following statement accurate:
Was black people discriminated in the South during the 50-ies?)

My own answer to Sirios question is:
1. No, because I may have given advice myself.
2. The fact that I have done so does NOT make it ethical.

[Easy E]

In the same way, none of the online cardrooms have made rules barring players from talking to each other about hands except when such activity constitutes collusion.<font color="blue"> So we don't see why it wouldn't be allowed.</font>

If you are serious about this statement, I'm very disappointed in your judgement.... not that you care.

Just because a cardroom doesn't waste their time making an unenforceable rule doesn't make it "right" for you to violate a long-understood principle of poker.

when we are at the same table there is no discussion of hands because of the potential for collusive information to be shared.

You do see, of course, why this statement can be called into question?

[Easy E]

I urge you to remove that comment from your blog, if only to save further (incorrectly deduced) problems such as "well.. Jerrod likes to tag team and cheat.. so i will as well

Shouldn't we be addressing his attitude as the more important problem?

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]


PS: RGP = Worst forum ever, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW: MySpace KWAZAR = Best forum ever, period.

[Nato76]

Newbie question:

What is RGP? I know its a forum but is it RGP.com?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, but first please respond this.

You have never, ever, given advise or received it while playing a hand in the internet.

Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, I have played about 14,000 hands online ( I know that is not much) and have never had anyone else in the room. I have never discussed a hand with anyone else nor would I.